Full text of "Hamilton Street Railway Company 1991 Transit Service Plan : Options for Discussion"

See other formats

UREN/MUNICIPAL

HAMILTON STREET RAILWAY

1991 TRANSIT SERVICE PLAN
Options for Discussion

SOY feet ed tee
Tee Ley

Es tk Sa NW oS aa RRA ES SRD

e's
het
hee

; URBAN/MUNTCIPar, 4 URBAN MUNICIPAL
| b a Ni We DO 4 0;
nS RE, EE IV Gav jgoygJ

GOVET "MENT pacurcnts

THE HAMILTON STREET RAILWAY COMPANY

owned and operated by

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

1991 TRANSIT SERVICE PLAN
OPTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

November, 1990

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
PAY) ASSESSMENT OF PRESENT SERVICES

PAI General System Trends

73) Route Performance Review

23 Customer Concerns

2.4 Financial Perspective

2.5 Comparison to Other Transit Systems

3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF SERVICE OPTIONS

3.1 Route Changes

a2 Service Revisions

3.3 Service Standards Modifications
3.4 Fare Plan Options

4.0 PROPOSED 1991 TRANSIT SERVICE PLAN

41 1991 Service Changes

4.2 1991 Fare Structure Modifications

43 Financial Implications of the Plan
APPENDICES

Appendix A - Route Ridership Data
Appendix B - Customer Opinion Survey

Table E.1
Table E.2

Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 2.7
Table 2.8
Table 2.9
Table 2.10
Table 2.11
Table 2.12
Table 2.13

Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3

Table 4.1
Table 4.2

Figure 2.1
figure 22

Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2

List of Tables

Follows Page
Proposed 1991 Services Changes. (ii)
Proposed 1991 Fare Plan (it)
H.S.R. Operating Trends 2-1
1990 Route Ridership Estimates 2-2
1990 vs. 1989 Route Ridership Estimates 2-2
Route Revenue/Cost Performance op
Overview of Services with Low Performance 2-3
Trends in Customer Contacts 2-4
Financial Overview of H.S.R. 2-5
Analysis of Fare Concessions 2-6
Allocation of 1990 Transit Costs by Time Period 2-7
Overview of Comparison Transit Systems 2-7
Hours of Service Comparison 2-8
Average Service Frequency Comparison 2-8
1990 Fare Level Comparison 2-8
Summary of Selected Schedule Changes 3-8
Summary of Service Standard Options 3-9
1991 Fare Plan Options 3-ll
Priorities for Service Changes 4-1
Summary of Comparison of Fare Plan Options 4-2

1 igures

H.S.R. Ridership Trends 2-1
Overview of 1990 Customer Contacts 2-3
Bayfront/Nash/Fennell/Burlington Route Changes 3-1

Delaware/Parkdale/Stoney Creek Local/Beeline Route Changes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 1991 Transit Service Plan has been developed to guide the preparation of the final
1991 budget for H.S.R. A proposed program of service changes and fare structure
modifications has been developed which will enable the financial performance of H.S.R.
to be improved while minimizing the impacts on transit users as much as possible.

As a basis for developing the 1991 plan, a detailed assessment of the adequacy of current
service was carried out. Some of the main findings of this assessment are as follows:

On a system-wide basis, H.S.R.’s financial performance has been declining for
several years. While ridership levels have been slowly declining, the amount of
service has been held fairly constant and costs have been steadily increasing.

The performance of specific H.S.R. services varies significantly across the system.
Routes with very low performance include several suburban routes and the
Sherman/Ottawa, Burlington, Limeridge, Aberdeen and Parkdale routes. Also,
early morning and evening time periods as well as Sunday and Holiday services
were also found to exhibit poor performance.

H.S.R. monitors customer concerns and preferences very closely. In 1990 the
feedback from customers indicated strongly that transit users are primarily
concerned with qualitative aspects of the service such as cleanliness of buses and
bus stops, courtesy of H.S.R. staff and availability of tickets and passes. Transit
users did not indicate that increases in service was a major priority or that fare
levels are very important.

From a financial perspective the local transit levy on City taxpayers is $15.8

million in 1990. One of the main contributors to this levy is the extent of the
fare concessions provided to specific H.S.R. users (1.e. students, seniors and

(1)

children). In 1990 the equivalent value of fare concessions on H.S.R. services is
about $8.8 million. Also, transfer payments to other local government agencies
contribute an additional $1.1 million to the local transit levy. An assessment of
the service contribution to the transit levy indicated that about $2.6 million of the
levy is a direct result of evening and weekend services.

A comparison of H.S.R. service and fare levels with four other municipalities was
conducted. This comparison indicated that service standards were generally
equivalent or somewhat better than in other systems. Concession fares and
monthly pass prices were lower in Hamilton than in the comparison systems.

Based on the assessment of existing services, a range of options for service changes was
developed and assessed. These options included route changes, schedule refinements and
service standards modifications. Through this investigation, a proposed program of
service changes for 1991 was developed, as outlined in Table E.1. On an annual basis,
this program is estimated to impact approximately 450,000 passenger trips while
reducing H.S.R. costs by $2.5 million. The annual impact on the transit levy would a net
reduction of about $1.6 million.

A proposed fare plan has been developed for 1991 as outlined in Table E.2. This fare
plan would inrease transit revenues about 5% in 1991 which is roughly equivalent to
current inflation levels. Also, the plan reduces the number of different fare categories
which will improve H.S.R.’s capability to monitor proper payment of fares (i.e. "fare is
fair” concept) and it brings the child category up to the same level as students and
Seniors.

(ii)

Change in

; Annual Passenger Annual Costs
Service Change Trips Impacted (1991 Dollars)
i) Selected Schedule Refinements
(King, Barton, Cannon, Locke,
York and other routes) 8,000 -$124,000
li) Sunday & Holiday Frequency Service
Standard Modified to 30 and 60
Minute Headways 1,000 -$82,000
iii) Sunday & Holiday Hours Service
Standard Modified to 8:00 a.m.
to Midnight 94,000 -§365,000
iv) Bayfront/Nash,Fennell/Sherman-
Ottawa/Burlington Route Changes 122,000 -$614,000
v) Delaware/Parkdale/Stoney Creek
Local/Beeline Route Changes 109,000 -$827,000
vi) Garth/Upper James Route Changes 70,000 -$174, 000
vii) Aberdeen Route Change 52.000 -$266.000

Total 456,000 -$2,452,000

TABLE E.1 PROPOSED 1991 SERVICE CHANGES

ADULTS - Cash Fare

- Tickets

- Monthly Pass
STUDENTS/SPECIAL .
ADULTS - Cash Fare

- Tickets

- Monthly Pass
CHILDREN Cash Fare) |

- Tickets

- Monthly Pass

SENIOR CITIZENS - Cash Fare
- Tickets
- Monthly Pass
- Annual

Convenience Pass

- Annual Over
70's Pass

UNIVERSIT Y/COLLEGE
SEMESTER PASS

Proposed

$1.25
$1.25
$48.00

$1.25
$0.75
$34.00

$1.25
$0.75
$34.00
$1.25
$0.75
$34.00
$150.00

$35.00

$155.00

TABLE E.2. PROPOSED 1991 FARE PLAN

(Current)

($1.15)
($1.15)
($43.50)

($1.15)
($0.75)
($30.50)

($0.50)
($0.50)
(n/a)
($1.15)
($0.75)
($30.50)
($25.00 + $0.25)

($31.00)

($147.00)

“1.0

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to present a proposed program of service and fare
changes for the Hamilton Street Railway (H.S.R.) in 1991. This program has
been developed through a planning study conducted in-house by H.S.R. staff
during the past several months. In developing this program, a number of
considerations were recognized as follows:

There is a need to maintain and improve the financial performance and
service efficiency of the H.S.R.

Services should continue to be designed to meet customer needs as far as
possible.

Changes- should be implemented in an incremental manner which will
minimize disruption and inconvenience for regular transit users.

It is intended that this program, when approved, will provide a basis for
bringing forward a detailed budget for 1991.

In developing the 1991 Transit Service Plan, a detailed assessment of existing

services was carried out. This assessment considered overall H.S.R. trends, route
performance, customer concerns and a comparison of service policies with
several other transit systems. This assessment is outlined in Section 2.0 of the
report. A range of service and fare options have been developed for
consideration, including route changes, schedule changes, service standards
adjustments and fare structure modifications. Section 3.0 describes each of these
options, together with an indication of ridership and cost impacts. The
recommended program of service and fare changes for 1991 is presented in
Section 4.0.

2.0

2.1

ASSESSMENT OF PRESENT SERVICES

An important input to the 1991 Transit Service Plan is an assessment of the
performance of existing H.S.R. services. This section provides an overview of
present services in terms of general system trends, route performance, customer
concerns and financial requirements. Also a brief comparison of service
standards and fare levels with other similar sized transit systems is provided.

General System Trends

Over the last five years the demand for H.S.R. services has been declining. As
indicated in Figure 2.1, ridership levels have been decreasing since 1984 with the
most significant ridership losses occurring in 1985 and 1988. Over this period of
time, the average rate of ridership decline is about 400,000 trips per year. This
rate of decline is expected to continue through 1991. A recent study by the
Canadian Urban Transit Association examined the effects of demographic
changes on transit ridership in Canadian cities. This study found that the 15-24
year old age group, which has the highest rate of transit use, has been declining
in size relative to the overall population. These demographic changes have
contributed to declining ridership in many other cities. In Hamilton, these
demographic changes, combined with relatively low growth rates, are a major
contributing factor to the ridership decline in recent years. ;

An overview of H.S.R. operating trends since 1986 is provided in Table 2.1. Some
of the main points to be noted in these data are as follows:

The amount of service provided by H.S.R., in terms of miles operated, has
remained almost constant since 1986.

The cost of supplying service, in terms of expenses per mile, has increased
by about 17% over the same period. This is largely attributable to increased
costs of fuel and labour.

Total H.S.R. expenses have increased by about 25% while the net costs of
the service, funded through Provincial and Municipal subsidies, have

increased by about 30% since 1986.

2-1

Overall, the trends indicate that declining financial performance of the H.S.R.
can be directly related to increasing unit costs of supplying services and
declining ridership. Potential strategies to improve financial performance of the
H.S.R. include refinements in services to better match ridership needs and
improving the revenue performance of the system.

Route Performance Review

On an ongoing basis, H.S.R. monitors the actual ridership, revenue and operating
costs of each individual route. A detailed estimate of 1990 route ridership is
provided in Table 2.2. Some of the main points to be noted from this table are:

Five routes (ie. Barton, King, Delaware, Upper Wentworth/Wellington,
Upper James) carry over 50% of the H.S.R. ridership.

- About 85% of H.S.R. ridership is carried on weekdays, with about 10% on
Saturdays and 5% on Sundays.

- The most lightly used routes are special services (ie. Rock Gardens,
Confederation Park) and routes serving low density outlying areas (ie.
Dundas Local, Ancaster, Stoney Creek Local). The Sherman/Ottawa route
is also a lightly utilized route. |

A comparison of 1990 and 1989 route ridership is provided in Table 2.3. This
table compares ridership in the first six months of 1990 with the same period in
the previous year. While overall ridership is declining, the change in ridership
varies considerably between routes. The routes with the greatest ridership
declines are generally the routes in the older developed areas of the city (e.
Delaware, Barton, Aberdeen, Bayfront, Cannon, Locke and Sherman/Ottawa).
Ridership growth has occurred on a number of routes, particularly on the King
route, several mountain routes (i.e. Upper Wentworth/Wellington, Upper Gage,
Upper Sherman, Upper Paradise, Garth and College) and the Stoney Creek
Central route. These routes generally are serving areas which are experiencing
new development and population growth.

An analysis of Revenue to Cost performance of each route for the first five
months of 1990 is shown in Table 2.4. The routes with particularly low
performance tend to be the routes serving outlying, low density areas (.e.
Ancaster, Dundas Local, Stoney Creek Local) and city routes not connecting

Pid

TOYAL ANNUAL RIDERSHIP * |

ARC DERIVED

1990

BENRQRARe B® YARSeR SSSR sf A

i a ee

428,515
433,051
65,736
4, XB
364,108
44,158
31,873
31,70
4,13
50,660
4,668
91,524
67,28
D133

ns a ee

66,800
966

2,738, 09
2,783,169
487,180
623,171
2,687,121
25,518
198,413
197 ,644
488 807
528,84
52,400
2B,8Al
487,157
B1,SB
792,46
G2 SES
1,139,772
988,374
820,967
220,978
332,296
414,070
201,498
44,172
175,506
427,297
18,88
174,857
427,482
350,474

6.7%
6.80%
3.02%
3.48%
6.08%
4 BAS
5.27%
5.2%
100.0%
3.72%
4.5%
4.51%
4.87%
4.08%
2.81%
4.5%
3.51%
7.08%
2.32%
L7%
ee 4
3.2%
2.47%

80.60%
80.65%
5.4
89.7%
BX
SL.4iz| B.1%
SLalz | Bb.1%
100.0%
S7.H% | 8.6%
100.0%
100.0%
AX] 8.9%
86.18 | 9.3%
5.28% | 9.8%
6.61% | 931%
S.7e | Ue
83.62% | 11.8%
87.41% | 9.01%
100.0%
2.51% | Wk
7.8% | 98%
MZ | 3.74%
BX | 7.87%
DAZ | WK
100.0%
100.0%
4.2%
B2X | 1.7%
AE | S.6Z
3.78% | 16.2%
100.0%

se ee ee es ee ee ee ee ee ee

d Bu 8
saneneeetAE UU nlite
Taaiaa Ahad ae ioganaseongman ae

SO SO On a an en Se = ee

Ridership does not include over 70’s pass users.

TABLE 2.2 1990 ROUTE RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES

JPA Jad NOD - (06.02S-€8,99q) aulpap diussepu eBeJaAY ¥#
SCL, OSRU pue Ssey 6,0/ JOAO apNyoul }OU Sap diysJEphy *

SJed),

9861 S861

dIHSH3SCH CS.LO300Ud

sea), O1 JAA GiysuapRY Ul EGUBUD WUad!ed
O66I-E86l

spuol diysieply “HSH
Ve eanbi4

* (S,000) Giysuepiy YLUOW 2}

Population Served (,000)
Miles Operated (,000)
Expenses (,000)

Transportation
Revenue (,000)

Net Cost of Service (,000)
Total Bus Fleet
Reverie/Cost Ratio (%)
Revenue/Mile

Expenses/Mile

TABLE 2.1

1990

(Budget) 1989

400
9,288
$50,912

$23,522
$27,390
274
46.2%
$2.53

$5.22

399
9,167
$48 , 306

$22,207
$26,099
274
46.0%
$2.42
$5.27

1988
399
9,159
$44,240

$21,213
$23,027
286
47.9%
$2.31
$4.83

H.S.R. OPERATING TRENDS

1987
394
9,023
$42,308

$20,657
$21,651
276

48 .8%
$2.29
$4.68

. 1986

386
9,075
$40,566

$19, 484
$21,082
262

48 .0%
$2.15
$4.47

|YR.T0 DATE |YR.10 DATE

|PASS. TRIPS |

1989

| BOARDINGS

1989
TRIPS

ec ens ee ce ee ee a ee ee ee ee ES ES ES NS RES SS ND ED NS NS SR SS

512,783
382,655
606,512
4,283
42,7
52,400
484,179
966
1,73
427,297
929, 182
062,394
563,513
693,860
4N, 38
721,26
1,328,561
242, 181

mc ce ee ee ee es ee SS Se Se ee eS SS OD a Se

19,05
948, 40B
233,398

52,949

1,342,481
244,719

re ee ere ees ree ee ee eee eemee me ceme ceree e de E S S S S S S S Y NS SNS SLY SSLS SENS SES SE

-11.7%
0.0%
-10.7%
4.2%
3%
4.2%
8.4%
AN
6.%
2%
3.&%
5.4%
2.2%
5.5%
2.%
0.2%
8.
-1.%
2.7%
BS 4
71.%
3.8%
-3.7%

a ns cc es a mr mc re ee ee ee ee ce ce ee ee een em ED GED CoD REDS SNES SEED SENS NENT

i a cc

143,371
0
12,143
1,789,661
366,650
79,03
94,397
306,048
108,896
481,775
15,663
191
101,30
129,199
265,886
200,908
318,483
1,35
209,687
27,909
240,960
966
41,989
25,H4
471, 5B
D4, 05
289, 986
360,264
240,072
S71 Aa
657,345
18,471

ec cs ee ee ee ee ES SS SS LS SY SLD SLRS SES SES SES

10,679
19,332
391,846
137,577

4,722
2,163, 785
13,807
69,377
139,498
118,108
10,18
193,087
351,224
314,062
5,579
1,508
271,105
B62
307,977
0
64,967
296,451
361,135
72,85
363,699
458,047
301,662
457 967
814,342
175,24

7,081

12,712
316,066
103,065

2,857
1,765,106

10,527
496,884
108,707

1,661,329
101,275
128,923
2,911
205,501
32,22

1,150
211,59

B55

207, 991
0

D,Z5
232,407
44B,142
B,D
28,176
363,187
24,511
35,68
624,95
12,221

a ce mc cr a mr es ee ee ee SS ES ES ES SS

390,572
10,6799
6, 52A

4,513,816
979,353
695,860
74),2
273,01

27,58

4,219,807

1,383,562
280, 785

4,190,
28,733
364,97
663,817
608,415
$98,307

5,797
522,318
92,2%
623,633
73
124,855
36,357

1,107,353

1,451,097
713,051
894,878
$5,737
858, 664

1,657,757
¥O,9D

a ee ee ce ee ee a SS ES LS LS LS SS SS TT

303,981
7,081
5,22
3,612, 660
727,
528,087
au,
D4, 965
203,750
16,388
3,416, 931
17,888
978,146
219, 362
3,319,574
202,793
264,181
527 9948
36,54
622,881
3,646
411,363
63,623
422,311
475
96,429
444,105
892,767
1,14,473
35,499
76,518
465,244
78,59
1,276,413
228,380

a ce ce es ee SE SS SS LS LS LS LS LT SS

Passenger trips do not include Over 70’s pass users.

NOTES:

TABLE 2.3 1990 VS. 1989 ROUTE RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES

ROUTES

King

Barton

University

Upper Gage
Upper Went/Well
Upper James
Dun/Del/WH/MW
Beeline Express
Cannon

York

Upper Paradise
Upper Ottawa
Upper Sherman
Garth

Nash

S.C. Central
Upper Kenilworth
College

Rock Gardens
Locke

Mohawk
Bayfront
Sanatorium
Fennell
Parkdale
Aberdeen

S.C. Local
Limeridge
Dundas Local
Burlington
Ottawa/Sherman
Ancaster Spine
S.C. Frances Ave.

Confederation Park

Grand Total

mel DD
REVENUE

$1,432,439
1,528,595
205,363
394,642
545,885
458,077
1,443,425
216,206
256,468
102,193
198,670
301,173
307,831

177,038
397,916
250,977
117,912
33,614
82,920
8,899
79,460
23,805
10,863
999

$10,005,063

YTD
YTD REV/COST

COST RATIO
$1,717,042 83.42%
2,107,550 72.53%
296,888 69.17%
759,601 51.95%
1,068,815 51.07%
946,533 48.40%
3,047,603 47.36%
458,159 47.19%
543,965 47.15%
228,439 44.74%
447,901 44.36%
684,010 44.03%
702,108 43.84%
230,206 42.85%
Sye4k) 42.13%
493,539 40.86%
610,465 39.80%
239,590 39.41%
1,817 38.94%
289,308 37.22%
589,928 36.61%
895,434 34.57%
515,213 34.36%
1,256,447 31.67%
845,026 29.70%
409,483 28.80%
139,053 24.17%
344,770 24.05%
42,884 20.75%
458,554 17.33%
146,127 16.29%
80,332 13.52%
17,307 5.77%
641 0.00%

$20,989,953 47.67%

TABLE 2.4 ROUTE REVENUE/COST PERFORMANCE

directly to the downtown area (ie. Sherman/Ottawa, Burlington, Limeridge,
Parkdale and Fennell). The Aberdeen route also has relatively poor
performance. The highest revenue to cost performance is exhibited by the main
east-west corridor routes (i.e. King, Barton, University) and the central mountain
routes (i.e. Upper Gage, Upper Wentworth/Wellington, Upper James).

A detailed estimate of route ridership by each time period is provided in
Appendix A together with the estimated passenger boardings per revenue hour
for each route-time period. Passenger boardings per revenue hour is an
excellent indicator of service performance as operating costs are closely related
to revenue hours. Table 2.5 provides a summary of the route-time periods with
particularly poor performance. A review of this table indicates that the route
service performance is generally lowest during early morning (i.e. before 6:30
a.m.) and evening (i.e. after 6:30 p.m.) time periods. Also, the performance is
generally lower on Saturdays and Sundays as compared to weekdays.

Customer Concerns

H.S.R. keeps a record of and regularly reviews all customer contacts to help
assess how well the public is being served. As of the end of September, over 900
customer contacts had been recorded for 1990. An overview of the nature of
these contacts is provided in Figure 2.2. Customer contacts were classified as
complaints (74%), requests for specific changes (19%) and compliments (7%). The
most common topic of customer contact dealt with employee conduct, both for
complaints and compliments. Specific employee concerns most commonly noted
were lack of courtesy, driving performance and passing bus areas without
stopping. While the number of requests for service is relatively low (19%), some
specific areas can be noted as follows:

Improved service was requested most often on the Parkdale route.

Improved or additional bus stops were requested most often on the Upper
Wentworth/Wellington route.

2-3

Weekday Services With Less Than
15 Passenger Boardings per Revenue Hour

Aberdeen - Evening

Sherman/Ottawa - A.M. Peak
Ancaster — A.M. Peak.

Upper James - Early Morning

Garth - Early Morning

Sanatorium - Early Morning, Evening
Upper Paradise - Early Morning
College - Evening

Mohawk - Evening

Limeridge - Early Morning, Evening
Dundas Local - A.M. Peak, P.M. Peak
Burlington - Early Morning

Saturday Services with Less Than

10 Passenger Boardings Per Revenue Hour

Parkdale -— Evening

Upper Kenilworth - Early Morning

Upper Wentworth/Wellington - Early Morning
College - Evening

Mohawk - Evening

Limeridge - Early Morning, A.M. Peak
Burlington - Early Morning

Stoney Creek Central - Early Morning
Stoney Creek Local - A.M. Peak

Sunday Service With Less Than
8 Passenger Boardings Per Revenue Hour

Bayfront - A.M. Peak

Delaware - Early Morning

Aberdeen - Early Morning, Evening

Parkdale - Early Morning

Upper Ottawa - Early Morning

Upper Sherman - Early Morning

Upper Wentworth/Wellington - Early Morning
Fennell — A.M. Peak

Burlington - Early Morning, A.M. Peak

TABLE 2.5 OVERVIEW OF SERVICES WITH LOW PERFORMANCE

LOVLNOD 40 SIldOL

SLOVLNOO YAWOLSND

YZ,

SLOVLNOS 30 HSEWNN

FIGURE 22 OVERVIEW OF 1990 CUSTOMER CONTACTS

The Delaware route had most of the compliments while the King route had
most of the complaints. It should be noted, however, that these routes both
have relatively high ridership.

The general trends in customer contacts are shown in Table 2.6 below.

1990
1987 1988 1989 (Projected)
Compliment 9 61 22 70
Complaint 300 718 560 807
Request I (PE, 256 172
Total 481 1,102 838 1,049

Table 2.6 Trends in Customer Contacts

Overall it would appear that the number of compliments and complaints are
rising while the number of requests has decreased in 1990.

To supplement, H.S.R.’s records of customer contacts, a brief public opinion
survey was conducted in September-October of 1990 to identify any major
service concerns. Four hundred persons were contacted by telephone and
interviewed. Appendix B contains the survey questionnaire that was utilized and
a tabulation of the responses to each question. The results of the survey can be
summarized as follows:

The persons surveyed were well distributed throughout the H.S.R. service
area and over 90% of those surveyed could be considered regular H.S.R.
users (i.e. they made at least 4 trips per week).

The main aspects of H.S.R. services which respondents said should be
improved were (in order of priority):

- number of litter containers in bus areas
- cleanliness of buses

- number of benches at bus areas

- availability of tickets and Perel

- number of shelters

2.4

- About 90% of the respondents indicated that fares were not an important
factor when deciding to use the bus. None of the respondents (i.e. 0 out of
400) indicated that fares were a very important factor related to using the
bus.

The information utilized to assess H.S.R. services from the customer perspective
has been somewhat limited due to the availability of time and resources.
However, there does seem to be a fairly common theme. Customers are .
primarily concerned with the qualitative aspects of the service such as
cleanliness of buses and bus areas, comfort of stops in terms of benches and
shelters and the courtesy and attentiveness of H.S.R. employees. The amount of
service provided and the fares charged do not appear to be major concerns of
H.S.R. customers in 1990.

Financial Perspective

In assessing the current H.S.R. service and determining the requirements for
changes in 1991, it is helpful to review the financial aspects of the system. A
summary of the 1990 budget revenue and expenditure for H.S.R. is provided in
Table 2.7. The total expenditures of $50.9 million in 1990 are required to
provide the planned level of service for this year. A more detailed analysis has
been condicted to determine the nature of the relationship between these
expenditures and the services supplied. This analysis indicated the following:

- About 60% of the costs ($30.4 million) vary directly with the amount of
service provided. Variable cost items include drivers wages, fuel, vehicle
maintenance.

About 19% of the costs ($9.4 million) vary indirectly with the amount of
service provided. Indirect variable cost items include trolley overhead
maintenance, purchasing and stores, building and grounds maintenance, etc.

About 21% of the costs ($11.0 million) are largely fixed each year. Fixed
cost items include capital repayment, taxes, management, service planning,
customer services, etc.

D535)

EXPENDITURES (1990 BUDGET):

Support Services
_ Engineering & Maintenance

Operations

Transportation Services
(Less Recoveries)

Total Expenditures

REVENUES (1990 BUDGET):

Fares & Other Transit Revenues
MTO Grants & Subsidies
General Support Grant (Region)
Suburban Municipalities Levy
City of Hamilton Levy

-Total Revenues

$3.73 million
$20.70 million
$25.43 million
$3.35 million
$(2.30) million

$50.91 million

$23.52 million
$9.69 million
$0.59 million
$1.35 million
$15.76 million

$50.91 million

TABLE 2.7. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW OF HLS.R.

The significance of this cost breakdown is that changes in service do not change
overall expenditures in direct proportion. For example, minor reductions in
evening service will enable only variable costs to be reduced in the short run
(e.g. 1 year). However, with more extensive reductions over a longer period of
time (e.g. 5 years), it would be possible to also reduce semi-variable and fixed
costs.

As indicated in Table 2.7 the net cost-of transit services to the City of Hamilton
will be about $15.8 million in 1990. One of the major factors contributing to this
cost to the municipal taxpayers is the fare concessions provided to different
groups of H.S.R. customers. These concessions, which have been made for social
service, educational assistance and various other reasons, enable certain groups
to use H.S.R. services at significantly reduced prices (as compared to the basic
adult cash fare). An analysis of the value of the fare concessions is provided in
Table 2.8. In summary, the equivalent value of fare concessions in 1990 is
estimated to be about $8.82 million. This amount is distributed over the various
transit users (except persons paying the full adult fare) with senior citizens being
the primary beneficiaries of concession fares.

There are also a number of H.S.R. budget expenditure items which are basically
transfer payments between local governments and do not contribute to the

amount of service provided. These costs are as follows, for 1990:

Business and realty tax payments to municipalities
(less Provincial subsidy) $866,000

Cost allocations from municipalities for litter
removal (less Provincial subsidy) $76,000

Cost allocations from municipalities for snow
and ice clearing (less Provincial subsidy) $126,000

2-6

Estimated Estimated Revenue Value Percent

1990 Fare at $1.15 of Fare of
Customer _ Trips Revenue Per Tri Concession Total
Group (millions) — (anillions) (millions) (millions) § Value
Adults 14.98 $16.06 $17.23 $1.17 13%
Secondary School
Students & Special
Adults 5.60 $3.69 $6.44 $2.75 31%
Children 1.19 $0.60 $1.37 $0.77 9%
Senior Citizens &
"Over 70's” Group 3.93 $0.61 $4.52 $3.92 44%
University/College
Semester Pass Users 0.50 $0.37 | $0.58 $0.21 2%
Total 26.21 $21.32 $30.14 $8.82 100%

TABLE 2.8 ANALYSIS OF FARE CONCESSIONS

In summary, fare concessions and local government transfer payments amount
to about $10 million in 1990 or about 63% of the $15.8 million City levy for the
H.S.R. This portion of the municipal transit levy is directly related to
non-transit purposes (e.g. social or educational fare concessions) or to costs
beyond H.S.R.’s control (e.g. municipal taxes and cost allocations).

In assessing the net costs of H.S.R. services, it is also useful to look at how these
costs are allocated by time period. Table 2.9 provides an overview of 1990 costs
and revenues allocated to weekday service, evening service, Saturday service and
Sunday and Holiday service. This allocation assumes that all semi-variable and
fixed costs (e.g. bus capital payments, buildings and grounds, planning,
marketing, management) are allocated to weekday service and that only variable
costs (i.e. strictly marginal costs) are assigned to evenings and weekends. This is
a realistic assumption since the transit system’s main function is to accommodate
weekday travel demands. On the basis of this allocation, it can be seen that
about 84% (i.e. $13.2 million) of the net cost of public transit to the City of
Hamilton is attributable to weekday service. The remaining 16% or $2.6 million
of the net costs are related to evening and weekend services. These services are
operated primarily to provide mobility for individuals without access to an
automobile and can be considered to be a form of social service.

Comparison To Other Transit Systems

In assessing transit services and policies it is useful to compare services and
policies to other similar sized cities and identify any major differences. It
should be recognized that differences will exist between specific cities as a result
of local conditions and policy preferences. However, comparisons to other cities
help to highlight areas which should be reviewed.

For the purpose of this comparison, four other similar sized cities (.e.
Kitchener, Ottawa, London, Mississauga) have been utilized. A_ general
comparison of these transit systems is provided in Table 2.10. The Ottawa
transit system is larger than Hamilton’s. while the other three are smaller than
H.S.R. Mississauga’s transit services differ somewhat in that these services are

strongly oriented to connections with TTC and GO Transit services.

oe),

Transit Cost
Allocations (millions)

Ridership (excluding _
Over 70’s group) (mullions)

Transit Revenues (millions)
MTO Grants (millions)

Net Cost to

Municipalities

& Region (millions)

City of Hamilton
Share of Net Cost (millions)

Weekday
ic

$39.8

17.4
$17.2
$7.7

$14.9

$13.2

Evening

$4.9

2.4

$2.4

$0.9

$1.6

$1.4

Saturday
Service

$3.6

$0.5,

Sunday
/Holiday
Service

$2.5

$1.2

$0.5

$0.8

$0.7

TABLE 2.9 ALLOCATION OF 1990 TRANSIT COSTS BY TIME PERIOD

Hamilton Kitchener

Population Served 400,000 235,000
Ridership Level

(millions 27.0 9.3
Employees 835 271
Fleet Size 274 108

Ottawa

568,000

80.0
2,116
814

issi

TABLE 2.10 OVERVIEW OF COMPARISON TRANSIT SYSTEMS

A comparison of the service hours is provided in Table 2.11. The service hours in
Hanulton are generally similar to Ottawa's service hours and significantly better
than the service hours provided in Kitchener and London. Although
Mississauga’s service hours are longer than Hamilton’s, this is primarily a
reflection of the orientation towards TTC services. It should be noted that
Hamilton’s Sunday and Holiday service hours are longer than all the other
comparison systems.

A comparison of service frequencies between the different cities is provided in
Table 2.12. Frequencies in peak periods tend to be based on the passenger
volumes carried while the frequency of service on evenings and weekends is
generally based on policy considerations. In comparing the service frequencies
in Hamilton with other cities, the most noteable difference is in the early
morning where Hamilton’s service levels are much higher. Also, on Sundays and
Holidays, Hamilton’s service levels are equivalent or better that the comparison
cities.

Fare levels in each of the comparison cities are summarized in Table 2.13. The
adult cash fares in Hamilton are generally similar to the other cities, except
London and Ottawa. In the case of London, adult cash fares are slightly lower
than in Hamilton but all concession fares (i.e. students, children, seniors) are
higher. Ottawa’s fare structure is quite different from the other cities, as
follows:

- Different cash fares or passes are required for types of services. For
example, Express routes require a $2.30 cash fare or $59.00 monthly pass

while local feeder routes require a $0.90 cash fare of $36.00 monthly pass.

Cash fares are the same for adults, students and children but monthly pass
prices are reduced for certain groups.

2-8

Weekdays
Early Morning

A.M. Peak
Mid-day Base
P.M. Peak
Early Evening

Late Evening

Saturday
Daytime

Late Evening

Sunday & Holiday
Daytime

Late Evening

TABLE 2.12 AVERAGE SERVICE FREQUENCY COMPARISON

30 min.

Hamilton Kitchener

45 min.

Ottawa

30 min.
10 min.
15 min.
10 min.
15 min.

30 min.

15 min.

30 min.

20 min.

30 min.

60 min.

(TYPICAL ROUTE TO DOWNTOWN)

30 min.

Weekdays

First Bus
Arriving Downtown

Last Bus Leaving
Downtown

Saturdays

First Bus
Arriving Downtown

Last Bus Leaving
Downtown

Sundays & Holidays
First Bus
Arriving Downtown

Last Bus Leaving
Downtown

6:00 a.m.

1:00 a.m.

6:00 a.m.

1:00 a.m.

6:30 a.m.

12:00 a.m.

8:15 a.m.

12:00 a.m.

5:20 a.m.

1:00 a.m.

5:40 a.m.

1:00 a.m.

6:05 a.m.

1:00 a.m.

6:30 a.m.

12:00 a.m.

6:30 a.m.

12:00 a.m.

10:00 a.m.

11:00 p.m.

TABLE 2.11 HOURS OF SERVICE COMPARISON

5:00 a.m.

215 am.

5:30 a.m.

2:00 a.m.

8:10 a.m.

1:30 a.m.

HOSIWdHWOD IRART AAVA OG66T €t°? wATAVL

OO°9ET$ 103 SSed A98e4sSeMeS YRUOM Se7Y4R & PUP H0O°OHT$ FOZ BSed AEeRSeMeES YRZUOM ANOJ e& SAHZIJO TEeUEeYIATYH (at)
“@TQETTBAR wotqQdo exrezJ DTZTOeds e& You St e1eyR SUPE Y/N (TTT)
-Kat> eya Aq peztprsqns 1eyRzINZ O10 BRSHOTQR OFENL “G7G°O$ FR SIOTUSS OF BREXSTZ SIEZTIO UOpUoT (tt)

“Op ta 26d -¢7 70s snita

ebnesstsstw

uopuoy

BAe2320

2TeUuveyrzITyY

uozTTweHR

pzes Tenuue 10Z 00'SZ§ 89809 Weaborg EduUeTUEAUOD BIOTUSES OUL *‘szo0fues 10J BSUOTAIdO eIeZ TeIeEeASS SeY VORTIWEH (tT)

2 8EQ0N

e/u e/u e/u O9TS-9ETS(AT) OO°LETS
sesseq 1Te_ZsSeMEesS SbeTTOD/AQVTSISATUNH
ocs zes tt$ os°Les os°oEes siojTues
e/u e/u e/u Oos°L4es e/u sueIpTtyd
ees e/u besS-9E$ os’zes os°o0Ees szuepn ys
oss eps 6S$-9€$ ges os'ebs S2INPY
sessed ATUUON
OT°T$/0z2°T$ z7S°0$/S0°T$ (TT) 06°0$ 06°0$ 6z7°0$ (T) szioTues
-ecu/oz° ts 09°0$ 0€°2$-06°0$ 06°0$ 0s°0$ ueipTttys
$6°0$/0z°T$ so°ts 0€°27$-06°0$ 06°0$ GL°O$/S6T°TS$ szuepn ys
OR TS 0:2" TS so°ts 0€°27$-06°0$ Gt°Tt$ GT’ T$ S2TNPY

SJeXyOTL/eEAeA Ysed

In comparing Hamilton’s fare levels with other cities, the following main
differences are noted:

- Fares for children and seniors in Hamilton are significantly lower than in
other cities.

- Student ticket prices are lower than student fares in other cities.

- Monthly pass prices, relative to cash fares, are lower than other cities.

3.0

DEVELOPMENT OF SERVICE OPTIONS

This section of the report presents a wide range of options which have been
considered in developing a proposed Transit Service Plan for 1991. The intent is
to identify and assess all relevant options in order to enable the Region to adopt
a program for 1991 which best meets its transportation needs and financial
capabilities.

The assessment of existing H.S.R. services, as outlined in the previous section,
has provided the main basis for the identification of potential service options.
Specifically, service revision proposals have been developed for all routes with
revenue to cost performance below 30%. Also, service modification options have
been developed for time periods such as late evening and Sundays when
ridership levels are very low. The comparison of H.S.R. service standards to
other cities has helped to identify potential areas where adjustments could be
considered to the service frequency and hours. For each potential service
option, an analysis has been carried out to determine the number of passenger
trips which might be affected by the change. Also, the change in annual costs
and revenues to the H.S.R. have been estimated. A summary of this analysis is
provided for each potential service option. .

Route Changes
3.11 Bayfront/Nash/Fennell/Sherman-Ottawa/Burlington Routes

This route change option has been developed in order to address the following
concerns:
Poor revenue/cost ratios on Sherman-Ottawa and Burlington routes.
Improving transit access for residents in the Red Hill, Vincent and
Gershome neighbourhoods.
Rationalize service frequencies and reduce bus requirements.
Congestion at Kenilworth Circle recovery point.
Lack of evening service in Parkview neighbourhoods.

Figure 3.1 shows the proposed bus routings for the services involved in this
change. A description fo these proposed changes is provided below.

3-1

peoy wnuoryeueg
uo uM - ¢F 3n0y eeeeeveeee siaeneee
Tats 7 - Te anoy BeBe e828 Be BB

qsenuosieg - p 3n0y
yoons 8
yey

onUsAy []2UU>,J
BSRER RRR RRSHRRRRERERRBRBRBeReeeeteeenee

QNUDAY [[TYUIAIH
ar ae
|

| ka4Bingdy 190 WOIsss0N0Z

/
yang Sury eae
a
|
|

SO UROOON OL.
peoy wojsuson~)

ssocoy TOMUSy

ans UTEW
@0000000000

| N

$
@
@
@
e
@
@
e
@

@
oy | PC tI

PIEMpoo MA Sa a a
ake

ONUSAY MOH

Jai : SHINVHO ALNOW NOLONITYNG/TIANNGAA/HS VN/LNOUAAYV > PE AYALA

“PALA 99e°G e

Ba nt 4 and Nash 57

These two routes have been combined into one route, providing direct service to
the Industrial sector from the Red Hill, Vincent and Gershome neighbourhoods,
as well as downtown. Service will be provided to the residential area on
Greenhill Avenue, south of King Street. Weekday service frequency will be 15
minutes in the peak periods and 20 minutes in the off peak periods.

Peak period frequency of service is reduced by 3 minutes on the Bayfront
portion of the route and a reduction of 5 minutes will occur on the Nash portion
of the route as a result of this change.

The section of Gage Avenue and Beach Road formerly served by the Bayfront
route will be served by the Fennell route. The section of Ottawa Street between
Beach Road and Main Street, formerly served by the Bayfront route will be
served by the Burlington route.

The following street sections will no longer receive bus service:

Ottawa Street, Main Street to King Street.

- Nash Road, Barton Street to Bancroft Street.

- Bancroft Street, Nash Road to Kenora Avenue.
Kenora Avenue, Bancroft Street to Barton Street.

Fennell 31

This route will now provide all day service to the heart of the Industrial sector.
Weekday service frequency in the peak periods will remain at 12 minutes. Off
peak frequency will change to 20 minutes from 15 minutes.

Grenfell Street and Beach Road, between Ottawa Street and Kenilworth
Avenue, will now receive one way eastbound only service. However, this area
will now receive service during all time periods, instead of off peak periods
only.

Gage Avenue between Burlington Street and Beach Road will receive southbound
only service. Beach Road between Gage Avenue and Ottawa Street will receive
eastbound only service. Peak period frequency in these areas will be improved
from 24 minutes to 12 minutes.

3-2

Kenilworth Avenue north of Grenfell Street will now receive one-way
northbound service.

Sherman-Ottawa 15
This weekday, peak period route will be eliminated.

Service on Ottawa Street will be provided by the Burlington route. Service on
Industrial Drive and Burlington Street will be provided by the Bayfront and
Fennell routes.

The following street sections will no longer receive bus service:

Sherman Avenue, Delaware Avenue to Burlington Street.
- Birch Avenue, Burlington Street to Wilson Street.

Burlington 53

This route will be extended further west into the Industrial sector along
Burlington Street and Industrial Drive to Ottawa Street, where it will travel
south to Main Street. At this point the route will travel west along Main and
King Streets to the Central Business District.

Weekday service frequency will remain at 20 minutes in the peak periods and
will be improved to 30 minutes in the off peak periods.

Kenilworth Avenue from Burlington Street to King Street will now be served
only by the Fennell route.

Customers along Ottawa Street will experience a drop in peak period frequency,

from 12 minutes to 20 minutes. However, a more direct service to downtown
will be provided.

Analyses Summary

Change in Annual Bus Hours 15,900
Annual Passenger Trips Impacted 122,000
Change in Annual Total Cost $(614,200)
Change in Annual Passenger Revenue - $(107,300)

3-3

312 Delaware/Parkdale/Stoney Creek Local/Beeline Routes

This route change option has been developed in order to address the following
4

concerns:

Poor revenue/cost ratio on Stoney Creek Local route.

Improve transit access for residents in the Gershome neighbourhood.
Rationalize service frequencies and reduce bus requirements.
Operational difficulties at bus recovery points.

Improve transfer connections at Eastgate Square Terminal.

Figure 3.2 shows the proposed bus routings for the services involved in this
change.

Delaware 5

The Delaware route will be realigned to provide service along Mt. Albion Road,
Greenhill Avenue and King Street in a one-way counter-clockwise loop.
Residents in the Red Hill, Vincent and Gershome neighbourhoods will now
receive direct service to the Central Business District (C.B.D.) every 15 minutes
during weekday peak periods and every 30 minutes during off peak periods.

The section of King Street between Centennial Parkway and Jones Street,
formerly serviced by the Delaware route, will continue to be serviced by the
Stoney Creek Local route. Service improvements to the Stoney Creek Local and
the Beeline routes will considerably reduce travel times for customers who live
in Old Stoney Creek. )

The following street sections will no longer receive transit service:
King Street, Greenhill Avenue to Centennial Parkway.
Rainbow Drive, Nash Road to Orphir Road.

Orphir Road, Rainbow Drive to Pottruff Road.
Pottruff Road, Orphir Road to King Street.

3-4

SEBS EEG
o*

onusay /
Iryasa

/
ase be

peoy
$3, JOWIDAODH)

(sepanq)

2u 0

O8e nan ae ae aa
sCeceeeenneunmenaant

sepengy M OTE -7S mw mm UPA -Ol eo ee
areMrpd- S$

(SAWVIE ® ONIX AO LSAM) GNADAT

[HoT FD fou01g- 85 mw mw mw MNPA-Ol eoee
CPUC T- Tl mem CEM -S _ __

(SAWVE ¥ ONIX AO LSVI) UGNADAT

Ig vosTTS

12aNg 190Ng
uoMNAA «= sae

West of the Central Business District, the section of the Delaware route
currently operating as Route 52 Main West-Dundas will now operate only
between the C.B.D. and Bond Street at King Street in Dundas. Previous surveys
have indicated that most passengers from Dundas are destined to the
Downtown. Customers travelling between Dundas and the area of Hamilton
east of the C.B.D. will be required to transfer. However, service on this
particular route segment will operate as an express between the C.B.D. and Main
Street West at McMaster University, thereby improving loading conditions and
reducing customer travel time. Service frequency in the weekday afternoon
peak period will be reduced from 12 minutes to 20 minutes.

Parkdale 11

This route will continue to provide service to Heritage Green. Weekday peak
period frequency will be 20 minutes and off peak frequency will be 30 minutes.
On weekday and Saturday evenings and on Sundays and Holidays, the route will
terminate at the Mt. Albion Road and Glencastle Drive bus loop.

The route portion operating on Greenhill Avenue between Mt. Albion Road and
Summercrest Drive will be eliminated. Service on this street will be provided by -
the Delaware and Bayfront/Nash routes.

Stoney Creek Local 58

Weekday peak period service frequency will be increased from 40 minutes to 20
minutes. All peak period trips will be timed to meet the Beeline Express route
at Eastgate Square Terminal.

Beeli xpress 1]

Service frequency on this weekday, rush hours only route will be increased from
12 minutes to 10 minutes. Schedules will be coordinated in order to provide
transfer connections with the Stoney Creek Local and Stoney Creek Central
routes. This will result in convenient transfers and shorter travel times for
weekday Stoney Creek customers who are Hamilton-bound. Also, this will
increase capacity in the CBD - McMaster University corridor.

3-5

Existing Beeline customers will benefit from the improved convenience of an
- increased service frequency.

Analyses Summary

Change in Annual Bus Hours 22,100
Annual Passenger Trips Impacted 108,600
Change in Annual Total Cost $(827,500)
Change in Annual Passenger Revenue $(95,500)

S35 Garth/Upper James

This route change option has been developed in order to address the following
concerns:

Rationalize route coverage by reducing route duplication (presently Route
31 Fennell, Route 33 Sanatorium, Route 27A Upper James and Route 45
Limeridge also cover sections of Garth Street).

Opportunity to reduce the number of buses and related costs with minimal
effect on service.

Route 32 Garth will be eliminated.

Customers along Garth Street north of Mohawk Rd. will be served by Route 33
Sanatorium and Route 31 Fennell buses. Customers along Garth Street south
of Mohawk Rd. will be served by Route 27A Upper James buses. The service
frequency on Route 27A Upper James will also be increased during A.M. and
P.M. Peak periods from 20 min. to 15 min.

Analyses Summary

Change in Annual Bus Hours 4,500
Annual Passenger Trips Impacted 70,000
Change in Annual Total Cost -$173,800
Change in Annual Passenger Revenue -$61,600

3-6

3.1.4 Limeridge

This route change option has been developed in order to address the following

concerns: .

Poor revenue to cost ratio
Route duplication
Freeway will affect route continuity

The Route 45 Limeridge will be eliminated in 1991. Customers in the Heritage
Green Area will still be serviced by Route 11 Parkdale buses. Customers along
Limeridge Rd. west of Upper James will be serviced by Route 27A Upper James
buses. Most affected customers are within 400 meters of the, "Upper”, mountain
bus routes. An option would be to implement this change after 1991 when the
new freeway is in place.

Analyses Summary

Change in Annual Bus Hours 14,500
Annual Passenger Trips Impacted 201,000 .
Change in Annual Total Cost -$560,100
Change in Annual Passenger Revenue -$176,900

3.15 Aberdeen

This route change option has been developed in order to address the following
concerns:

Poor revenue to cost ratio
Route duplication

Reduce bus requirements

The section of Route 6 Aberdeen along Longwood Rd. from Franklin Ave. to
Aberdeen Ave. will be eliminated.

Also, service frequency will be provided every 30 minutes during Weekday
Midday, Weekday Early Evening, and all day Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays.

3-7

oie

3.3

1alySe Imma

Change in Annual Bus Hours 6,900
Annual Passenger Trips Impacted 52,000
Change in Annual Total Cost -$266,000
Change in Annual Passenger Revenue -$45,800

Service Revisions

A number of service options based on schedule refinements have been developed
in order to address the following concerns:

Adjusting service frequencies to meet customer demand.
Reducing operating costs during off peak periods.

Table 3.1 shows the existing service frequency and the proposed service
frequency, by route, for the affected time period. The table also shows the
number of annual customers affected and the estimated reduction in annual
cost.

Early Morning Frequency Changes

On weekdays and Saturdays, the service frequency on the King, Barton and
Cannon routes will be adjusted for the first hour of service. Service frequency
on the Locke and York routes will be adjusted for the first hour on weekdays
only. .

Analyses Summary

Change in Annual Bus Hours 3,200
Annual Passenger Trips Impacted 7,750
Change in Annual Total Cost $(124,300)
Change in Annual Passenger Revenue $(6,800)

Service Standards Modifications

These service standard modification options have been developed to address the
issue of providing an acceptable level of bus service during late evening time
periods and on weekends and holidays, that will accomodate existing customer
demand.

3-8

Time Period
Early Peak Off Peak Early Late
A.M.

Route A.M. Peak PM. + £Evening Evening

King- Weekdays 6-10
-Saturdays 8-10

Barton-Weekdays 6-10
-Saturdays 8-10

Cannon-Weekdays 12-15
-Saturdays 20-30

Locke-Weekdays 15-30 20-30 20-30
York-Weekdays 15-20 15-20

NOTES: 6-10” means service headway will be changed from 6 minutes to 10 minutes.
Annual passenger trips impacted = 8,000
Change in annual cost = -$124,000

TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF SELECTED SCHEDULE CHANGES

Table 3.2 displays a variety of varied service standard options and includes an
estimate of the number of customers that would be affected and an estimate of
annual cost savings.

Shop! Weekdays and Saturdays Last Trip at 12:30 a.m.

Existing weekday and Saturday schedules provide for trips leaving the
downtown at 1:00 a.m. and, on selected routes, at 1:20 am. This option will
result in schedule adjustments so that the last trips on the downtown routes will
leave from the Gore Park area at 12:30 am. This option will still allow
customers to enjoy the various downtown late night attractions and make their
trips home on the bus.

Bo2 Weekdays and Saturdays Last Trip at 12:00 a.m.

This service standard option is similar to 3.3.1 with the last trips leaving
downtown at 12:00 a.m. instead of 12:30 a.m.

3.3.5 Sunday and Holiday Service from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.

Existing Sunday and Holiday schedules provide bus service on 24 out of 33
routes. On some routes, service starts at 5:30 a.m. and finishes at 1:00 a.m. This
option would reduce the number of service hours provided on most routes so
that customers could make trips between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. only. This
option would still allow for the vast majority of church, recreational, shopping
and work trips to be made by bus.

3.3.4 Sunday and Holiday Service from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

This service standard option is similar to Option 3.3.3 with last trips leaving the
ends of the line at 8:00 p.m. instead of 12:00 a.m.

20 No Holiday Service

Currently, Sunday bus schedules are in effect on statutory holidays. Many
holidays, such as Christmas Day, result in low utilization of bus routes by H.S.R.
customers. This service standard option would eliminate all public transit

services on statutory holidays.

3-9

iv)

vil)

Vili)

anda ion

Weekdays & Saturdays Last Trip 12:30 a.m.
Weekdays & Saturdays Last Trip 12:00 a.m.
Sunday & Holiday Service from 8:00 am - 12:00 am
Sunday & Holiday Service from 8:00 am - 8:00 pm
No Holiday Service

No Sunday & Holiday Service

Sunday & Holiday - 60 Minute Evening Frequency

Saturday - 30 Minute Daytime Frequency
- 60 Minute Evening Frequency

TABLE 3.2 SUMMARY OF SERVICE STANDARD OPTIONS

Annual
Trips

90,000
115,800
59,000
155,000
80,000
1,096,000
1,000

63,000

Change in
Total Annual
Costaee SS

-$260,000
-$418,000
-$365,000
-$766,000
-$560,000
-$2,520,000
$82,000

-$261,000

3.4

53,0 No Sunday and Holiday Service

This option would eliminate all bus service that currently operates on Sundays
and Holidays.

Bo Sundays and Holiday - 60 Minute Evening Frequency

Some routes currently provide bus service during the evening at intervals less
than 60 minutes. Passenger demand on these routes indicates that a 60 minute

evening frequency would be sufficient. This option would provide 60 minute

evening service frequency, except on those routes where a more frequent service
is necessary to meet the passenger demand.

3.3.8 Saturdays - 30 Minute Daytime and 60 Minute Evening Frequency

Some routes currently provide daytime bus service at intervals less than 30
minutes. This option would provide a 30 minute service frequency during the
daytime on all routes, except those where passenger demand requires a greater
frequency. On Saturday evening, this option would provide a 60 minute
frequency on all routes, except where demand warrants a greater frequency.

Fare Plan Options

During the past several years, H.S.R. fares have typically increased about 5
cents per ride each year which represents a rate of increase roughly equivalent
to inflation. For 1991, this level of fare increase could be considered as a
"maintenance budget” increase which would correspond to the projected 1991
ridership level of 25.5 million passenger trips (includes 3 million Over 70's
passholder and miscellaneous trips). This compares to the estimated 1990
ridership level of 26.1 million passenger trips.

3-10

In comparing H.S.R. fare levels to fares in other similar sized transit systems,

the following points were noted:

Concessions fares (i.e. seniors, students and children) are much lower at
H.S.R.

, Monthly pass prices relative to cash fares are lower at H.S.R.

A number of fare plan options have been developed for H.S.R. in 1991. These
options have been developed with several specific objectives in mind, as follows:

To contribute towards reducing the costs of H.S.R. for Regional

taxpayers.

° To ensure that fare increases do not create undue hardship for transit
users.

, To improve the capability of bus drivers to monitor proper payment of

fares by transit passengers.

The third objective is particularly relevant for H.S.R. The current 1990 fare
plan is quite complex, with a wide variety of different fare categories. For
example, senior citizens have at least five different fare payment options
available. As a result, it is very difficult for the operators to monitor proper
payment of fares under crowded conditions. To ensure transit users pay correct
fares, it is necessary to avoid having too many different fare categories. Under
a "fare is fair” concept, the number of different fare categories would be
significantly reduced to enable the bus operators to ensure all passengers paid
the proper fare.

The different fare options which have been considered for 1991 are outlined in
Table 3.3. A brief description of each option is provided below.

oa)

ssed

sesevod

00°SST

OO°SE

00°OST

OS‘ tPE
ss°
SZ t

ey
Hes AE

OS be
S Gis
Sizer L
00°86
res
Scar

oul petsytTpow
qgdesuos

AITe®y St 81eY
S¢ NOILdO

ssed

60°SST

OO*SE

00°OST

OO°PE
SL°
Sct

Ste
Sz°T

OO°bE
SL°

sz‘T
00° 8h
Sica
Sica

epnyzs=PTTyo
adesuo0)

IF@g SBT e1¥Y
6 NOILAO

SMHOILdO MBVId BAVA T66T

0O0°SLT

e/u

e/u
v¥/u

00°0d
06°
00°T

06°
00°T

00°0F
06°
Sz°Tt

00°0S

Se°T
sz°t

uetTd e10g
Aaysnpuy
reotdséz
€ NOILdoO

00°zgoTt

oo°SsE

00°S9T ssed

sv-

O00°SE
Se°
Sz°T

09°
09°

O0°SE
Se°
S7°T

00° St

Sz°T
Sz7-T

esversuyr
3ued OT

@ NOILAO

€°€ wg1avz

OO°LST

OO0°SE

00°OST
Ov-

OO°EE
08°
Oz°T

ss°
Ss°*

OO°EE
08°
Oz°T

00°9F

Oz°T
oz°T

eseveiouy
ques ¢

T NOILdO

OO°LET

OO Fete

SGZ° +
00°sz$

OS°OE
SL°
STt°T

0s*
os°

OS‘*OE€
SL°
Stat

OS*°E€b
Site kh
Sled

uetd
e1eg

O66T

sSWd WaLsawngas
AOAITTIOO/ALISUSAINN

§,0L 1°A0

weiboi1g
e.ueTtTueAUOD

sseq ATyQuUOW
VEHOTL
used

WOHOTL
yseo

sseq ATYyQUOW
FOXITAL
ysed

sseq ATYyRUOW
FEHYOTL
yseo

SUYOINTS

kc he © @ | Be)

LN3QGNLS

LINay
Riobe ye

Option 1 (S Cent Increase)

In this option, the fare for all categories is increased an equivalent of 5 cents
per ride. Monthly pass prices are increased $2.50, representing average pass
usage of 50 trips per month. The price of the annual pass for the “Over 70's”
- group of senior citizens has been increased $4.00 which is much less than 5 cents
per ride but this fare category is recognized as a special case.

The price of the Convenience Program tickets for Seniors would be 40 cents per
ticket, representing a 5 cent increase over the equivalent 1990 cost per ride of 35
cents. The Convenience Program annual pass for Seniors would cost $150.00
based on estimated average use of 380 trips yearly.

Option 2 0 Cent Increase)

Under Option 2, fares in most categories are increased by 10 cents per ride. The
increased cost of monthly passes is $4.50 per month in this option to help
alleviate the increased cash fares. The Convenience Program tickets and annual
pass would be 45 cents and $165.00 accordingly while the "Over 70’s” annual pass
price would remain at $35.00 as in the previous case.

Yotion 3 (Typical Ind .

Option 3 is intended to be representative of the fare levels in other similar sized
transit systems across the province. Fares for concession categories (i.e. senior
citizens, students, children) have been raised significantly and most of the
differences between these categories have been eliminated. Adults and students
would pay a basic cash fare of $1.25 while the cash fare for seniors and children
would be $1.00. Discounted fares would be available to students, seniors and
children through tickets at $0.90 each. Monthly passes would be priced at $50.00
for adults and $40.00 for student, seniors and children. The Convenience
Program and Over 70’s Program for senior citizens would be phased out under
this option.

Option 4 (Fare Is Fair Concept)

Option 4 is an approach to reducing some of the numerous fare categories to
improve fare monitoring (i.e. "Fare is Fair” Concept) while modifying the rate
of increase for specific groups. The fare levels for children, students and
seniors have been brought to the same levels ($1.25 cash fare, $0.75 ticket and
$34.00 monthly pass). The Annual Convenience Pass would be available to
senior citizens at $150.00 to alleviate the impact of other fare increases. Also,
monthly pass prices are slightly lower under this option to reduce the impact of
the increased cash fares.

ion 5 (Fare is Fai ncept

Option 5 is an alternative approach to reducing the various different fare
categories. Under this option, cash fares would be set at $1.25 for all persons and
discounts would be made available through reduced ticket prices. The ticket
price for students and seniors would be set at 85 cents (compared to 75 cents in
1990). The ticket price for children would be set at 65 cents (compared to 50
cents in 1990). The annual Convenience Pass for seniors would cost $150.00 while
the “Over 70's” pass would cost $35.00. Monthly pass prices for students and
seniors would be set at $34.50.

3-13

4.0

PROPOSED 1991 TRANSIT SERVICE PLAN

This section of the report discusses the program of service changes and fare
adjustments proposed for 1991. The various types of service changes outlined
previously have been assessed and rated in terms of general priorities. Based on
this assessment, a number of selected changes are proposed for 1991. The fare
options are evaluated and a preferred option is identified for 1991. Finally, a
summary of the financial implications of the proposed plan for 1991 is
presented.

1991 Service Changes

The various route changes, schedule refinements and service standards
modifications have been subjectively ranked by H.S.R. staff and a selected set of
changes are proposed for implementation in 1991. These suggested priorities and
the proposed program have been developed for discussion purposes and are
subject to refinement by the Transportation Services Committee and Regional
Council.

The proposed program of service changes are summarized in Table 4.1 and a
brief discussion of each change follows:

- The set of schedule refinements have been identified as top priority for 1991
since the changes all involve adjusting service headways to more closely
match current ridership levels. The number of passenger trips impacted is
relatively low compared to the potential cost savings.

Changes to service standards for Sunday and Holiday services are proposed
based on the low level of ridership and the relatively high standards
currently provided. The major impact on transit users will be the reduction
in hours of service from 6:00 a.m. - 1:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. - midnight.

Changes to the Bayfront/Nash and related routes are proposed for 1991 in
view of the significant cost savings which can be achieved through this route
rationalization. This change will impact about 122,000 trips and some
specific areas (eg. Sherman Avenue, Birch Avenue) will lose their local bus
service. However, alternative bus services are available within reasonable
walking distances in most cases and these changes will reduce congestion at
the Kenilworth traffic circle, eliminate the need for transfers between Nash
and Bayfront routes and provide direct downtown service from the Beach
strip.

4-]

VIC

a ions

A. CHANGES PROPOSED FOR 1991

- Schedule Refinements

- Sunday & Holiday Frequency Service

Standard Changed to 30 and 60 Minutes

- Sunday & Holiday Hours Service Standard

Changed to 8:00 a.m. to Midnight

- Bayfront/Nash/Fennell/Sherman-Ottawa/

Burlington Route Changes

- Delaware/Parkdale/Stoney Creek Local/

Beeline Route Changes

- Garth/Upper James Route Changes

- Aberdeen Route Change

Total (for proposed Service Changes)

- Saturday Frequency Service Standard

Changed to 30 and 60 Minutes

- Weekdays & Saturday Hours Service

Standard Changed to 12:30 a.m. Last Trip

- Sunday & Holiday Hours Service Standard

Changed to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

- Limeridge Route Change

- Sunday & Holiday Service Standard

Changed to No Holiday Service

- Weekdays & Saturday Hours Service Standard

Changed to Midnight Last Trip

- Sunday & Holiday Service Standard

Changed to No Sunday & Holiday Service

TABLE 4.1

Number of
Passenger
Trips
Impacted

7,800

B. POTENTIAL CHANGES NOT PROPOSED FOR 1991

116,000

1,096,000

PRIORITIES FOR SERVICE CHANGES

Change in
Annual
Costs

(1991 Dollars)

-$124,000

-$82,000

-$365,000

-$614,000

-$827,000
-$174,000
-$266.000

-$2,452,000

-$261,000

-$260,000

-$766,000
-$560,000

-$560,000

-$418,000

-$2,520,000

The changes to the Delaware/Parkdale/Stoney Creek Local/Beeline routes
are proposed for 1991 in view of the significant cost saving potential as
compared to the number of transit trips impacted. The proposed changes
will greatly improve services in the Red Hill, Vincent and Gershome
neighbourhoods and will also simplify the current Delaware route and
improve Stoney Creek route connections to the Beeline. However, some
localized areas will lose their direct connections to downtown and
approximately 109,000 trips will be impacted by the combined changes.

The changes to the Garth/Upper James routes will result in a significant
cost saving by eliminating the Garth route. Users of this route have
alternative routes within reasonable walking distance in most cases.

The change in the Aberdeen route is proposed in view of the significant cost
saving as compared to the number of trips impacted. Ridership is relatively
low on this route and has been declining, resulting in the current poor
performance.

The remaining service options investigated are not recommended for
implementation in 1991. Options involving further modifications to service
standards are not proposed at this time due to the further impacts on ridership
and the need to assess the actual effects of implementing the changes proposed

‘above. The Limeridge route change is not recommended for 1991 due to the

number of trips impacted. Also, other route changes requiring further planning
investigations may be required in this area beyond 1991 and the proposed
Limeridge changes would be premature. The full elimination of Sunday and
Holiday service is not recommended due to the significant number of trips
impacted and the general hardship this would create for persons reliant on
public transit service.

1991 Fare Structure Modifications
An analysis of the five fare plan options outlined previously has been carried
out to determine the impact on ridership and transit revenues. The results of

this analysis are summarized in Table 4.2. A brief assessment of each option is
as follows:

4-2

Option 1
(5 cent increase)

Option 2
(10 cent increase)

Option 3
(Typical Industry
Plan)

Option 4
(Fare is Fair)

Option 5
(Modified Fare
is Fair)

Estimated
1991
Revenue

(millions)

$22.50

323.30

$25.25

$22.99

$23.12

Estimated

1991
Ridership
(millions)

25.54

Pasyeod

24.75

25.10

25.03

Average
Revenue
per Ride

in 1991

$0.881

$0.921

$1.02

- $0.916

$0.924

Change

Revenue
VS.

+2.74%

+6.43%

+15.3%

+$5.02%

+5.57%

NOTES: - 1990 Passenger Revenue estimated to be $21.90 million.

Change
in
Ridership
vs. 1990

-2.28%

-3.17%

-5.30%

-3.95%

-4.25%

- 1990 Ridership (including Over 70’s and misc.) estimated to be 26.14 million
trips.

TABLE 4.2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF FARE PLAN OPTIONS

Option 1 (5 cent increase) can be considered a “default” option which is
generally consistent with past trends. This plan would have the least
impact on H.S.R. ridership but the increase in passenger revenues is only
2.7% compared to 1990. This is clearly less than inflation and would not
contribute to improved financial performance for the H.S.R. Also, this plan
does not reduce the numerous fare categories currently in place.

Option 2 (10 cent increase) would increase transit revenues at a rate higher
than inflation and would contribute to improved financial performance.
The increased fares are generally spread over all groups so that it could be
perceived as being more equitable than other options. However, this option
does not reduce the number of fare categories which means that payment of
fares would not be easier to monitor.

Option 3 (Typical Industry Plan) is representative of the fare structures in
other similar-sized Ontario cities. It would enable a_ significant
improvement in financial performance to be achieved compared to the
other options. However, it would also mean significant increases in the
fares for senior citizens and children as well as for monthly pass users.
Under this option the Over 70’s pass would no longer be available which
would likely meet with considerable resistance.

Option 4 (Fare is Fair Concept) is a plan which would greatly reduce the
discrepancies between the different concession fares and would make
monitoring of fare payment much easier than at present. The revenues
would increase about 5.0% under this option which is roughly equivalent to
the current rate of inflation. The group impacted most under this option
would be children who are also a relatively small segment (about 4% in
1990) of H.S.R. ridership. On the other hand, students and seniors would
benefit from constant ticket prices under this option.

4-3

4.3

Option 5 (Modified Fare is Fare) is a plan which introduces some reduction
in fare categories but distributes the increased fares over all groups. This
option would generate somewhat higher revenues than Option 4 and there
would be a greater impact on ridership.

In evaluating these options, it has been concluded that Option 4 (fare is fair) is
the preferred 1991 fare plan for H.S.R. for the following reasons:

- This plan would provide an increase in revenue which would keep pace with
current rates of inflation.

- By reducing the number of different fare categories, H.S.R.’s capability to

monitor proper payment of fares will be greatly increased.

- The category with the most significant increase (ie. children) are the
smallest segment of H.S.R. riders.

The proposed fare levels for all categories of users are very reasonable
when compared to other similar sized cities.

Financial Implications of the Plan

A major objective of the 1991 Transit Service Plan is to improve the financial
performance of the H.S.R. This directly affects the levy to municipal taxpayers
for transit services. For 1990, the budget levy to the City of Hamilton is $15.76
million. The implications of the proposed service changes on the transit levy are
summarized as follows:

Annual reduction in H.S.R. costs = $2.45 million

Annual reduction in MTO subsidy = $0.47 million

Estimated reduction in passenger revenue = $0.40 million

Net reduction in Municipal Transit Levy (Annualized) = $1.58 million

4-4

The full saving of $1.58 million will be difficult to achieve in 1991. Due to
requirements in the driver’s collective agreement, service changes can only be
introduced at specific points during the year. Therefore, it is likely that the
actual reduction realized in 1991 would be about 50% of the annualized amount
of $1.58 million. The full amount of these savings would be realized in future

years.

The proposed 1991 fare plan (1.e. Option 4) would generate additional revenues,
as compared to the maintenance budget, which would directly reduce the
municipal transit levy. A reduction in the levy of $0.46 million is estimated
and, if the fare plan were implemented in January 1991, the full amount of this
saving would be realized in 1991.

APPENDIX A

ROUTE RIDERSHIP DATA

| Route Name | Forecast | Farly AM. Mid P.M. Evening Total |

| | Rev. Pass. | Moming Peak Day Peak

1 - KING 3,398,212 | 70,563 501,277 1,105,857 64,709 420,553 2,738,959 |

2 — BARIUN 3,450,923 | 84,799 503,586 1,136,864 691,617 36,304 2,783,169 |

3 — CANN 570,134 | 17,133 87,420 189,117 14,74 52,716 487,180 |

4 — BAYFROWT 694,082 | 24,335 161,757 184,900 183,20 68,990 623,171 |

5 — DELAWARE 3,248,061 | 41,441 555,276 1,110,751 631,584 348,069 2,687,121 |

6 — ABERDEEN : 3,554. 34,497 6,682 %,1500 14,635 20,518 |

7 - LOE 243,123 | 3,083 2%,252 76,3133 65,324 27,473 198,413 |

8 — YORK 242,181 | 1,384 39,720 989,137 4,50 12,847 197,644 |

9 — ROK GARDENS 4,283 | |
10 - BEELINE 488,837 | 1%4,068 100,00 1%,55/7 489,326 |

11 — PARTALE 605,512 | 13,08 192,177 178,03 131,56 53,990 528,8% |
15 — SHERMANVOTTANA 52,400 | 9,715 18,80 10,58 #&#4213,247 52,400 |
16 — ANCASIER 23,841 | 6,121 2,900 14,820 23,841 |
21 - UW. KENILARIB 563,513 | 8,675 105,98 201,%5 127,144 43,375 487,157 |

27 - We. JAMES 1,062,3% | 14,231 173,188 371,462 211,782 «117,710 888, 374 |
31 - FENELL 998,570 | 23,565 164,021 326,745 210,266 %,381 820,967 |
32 - GRIH 70,978 | 5,279 51,145 82,822 987,112 4,620 20,978 |
33 — SANATORIIM 42,7% | 4,578 81,054 119,023 91,556 36,084 332,256 |
3h — UP. PARADISE 471,38 | 6,844 %,818 127,550 13,661 53,198 414,070 |
35 - CUEZ 213,107 | 3 54,063 74,131 6,089 11,756 201,493 |
41 - MAK 512,783 | 1,737 100,155 182,042 +. 124,40 44,867 454,172 |
45 — LIMERIDGE 200, 750 | 7 37,22 B77 3,53 25,114 175,53 |
51 — UNIVERSITY 427,297 | 0,574 24,82 123,10 427,297 |
52 — DUNDSS LOCAL 18,858 | 10,215 8,643 18,88 |

55 - ST. (RK. CENT. 179 | 7,297 99,996 162,96 + 116,752 9 50,471 427,482 |
56 - OONFED. BK 15,213 |

57 - NASH 382,655 | 6,711 106,759 129,026 39 65,275) «42, MB 350,474 |

5B - ST. CRK. LOCAL 79,733 | 12,3 27,25 18,244 8,982 66,800 |

FRANCES AVENE 966 | |

a _—————__——_——__—_——_—_—_————————— eeecccrc c c c—l—l— a — ec,

l TOTAL | 23,156,906 | |

TABLE A.l WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP

Forecast | Early A.M Mid
Rev. Pass. | Moming = Peak Day
3,398,212 | 1,352 3,00 29,10
3,450,923 | 3,98 32,757 215,471
50,1% | 389 3,264 33,956
694,082 | 787 4,91 23,182
3,248,061 | 3,455 3,769 168,609
262,375 | 3,619 28,864
243,123 | 42 2,35 17,535
242,181 | 42 2,36 17,467
4,283 |
488,837 |
605,512 | 1,193 4,459 34,844
52,400 |
3,841 |
563,513 | 18 4,473 2,218
693,860 | 180 4,744 2,641
929,182 | 1,177 6,564 49,044
727,26 | 1,22 6,428 %6,468
1,328,561 | 1,08 11,08 98,112
1,062,394 | 1,892 11,60 57,84
938,570 | 1,471 8,425 42,483
230,978 |
42,73 | 4 3,06 19,727
411,338 | 3,00 2,74
213,107 | 1,216 3,647
512,783 | 3.2% 21,18
200,750 | 107 CEN 9 Tes te)
427,297 |
18,88 |
189,055 | 314 1,362 3,091
484,179 | 942 5,086 26,622
15,213 |
382,655 | 252 1,574 9,696
79,733 | 805 6,668
36 |
| 23,156,906 |

TABLE A.2. SATURDAY RIDERSHIP

BBE Re OBE
HEBRSRSe

—- 6 |6(e

—-— = we

¥
BB

-~- we Oe Oo UO

RSra88 SRGaRey
PRSBE ARESSBS

BS Sex
BS $8

3,398,212 | 2,696 20,042 108,876
3,450,923 | 2,722 2,33 105,63
570,134 | %0 10,35
694,082 | 50 2,97 ~—‘11, 086
3,248,061 | 1,302 14,180 81,463
262,375 | 5 91,2805, 745
243,123 | 785 «5, 40
242,181 | 782 «45,917
4,283 |
488,837 |
605,512 | Me 1,887 9,24
32,400 |
23,841 |
563,513 | 6 1,901 11,30
693,860 | 141 02,321 (13,642
929,182 | 79 = 3,269 :19,398
727,266 | 22 1,83 13,815
1,328,561 | 459 3,609 14,172
1,062,2% | 526 86. 3,740 ~—Ss«:19, 111
938,570 | 2,510 16,210
20,978 |
42,7% | 2,14 11,448
471,28 | 5,807
213,107 | 2,377
512,783 | 1,460 8,183
200,750 |
427,257 |
18,88 |
189,055 | 182 65 2,909

TABLE A3 SUNDAY RIDERSHIP

1,304

paBs

BRS
BESRRBAS

ete

g [2S8NR [ARee8 ASMiMaAs jonnse AGE | A

; 2% =a ee

g|gg|SSRAM [ART tA /A BAe /HesAn |AANKA |S RoR | A

z e GRSSAISS**N| AMA|ANBS |S8dH°] Rania

k ay |SRSAR |AEr +a [NAMVe /AERIH |MARSH (BARKS | A

g aR BRESRIAA**RIS FHS|ARAGR|VRSRA|R ase [a

H zy [eneaa FO**9 /SORSR |GOSKR | SAEAT /AeHRA |
gg [SF8S8 [BN tA lA AAG ARMS lon ARQ

ig |

g |8

148 |E8tay |ibued ides |i

: un He tee

Dost’ a # A |

TABLE A.4. WEEKDAY BOARDINGS PER REVENUE HOUR

: %* — APC data is not available for routes 8 —- YORK ad 10 — BEELINE cee to softwere problens.
A blank field indicates that no service is scheduled for that time period m the selected route.

PASSENGER BOARDINGS PER REVENUE HOUR — SATURDAY SERVICE

January 1990 Board | March 1990 Board

September 1989 Board
A blank field indicates that no service is scheduled for that tim period m the selected route.

+ — Indicates no data for the selected tim period was successfillly captured.

NOIE: & — AFC data was not available for route 8 - YORK de to a software problem,

TABLE AS SATURDAY BOARDINGS PER REVENUE HOUR

PASSENGER BOARDINGS PER REVENUE HOUR — SUNDAY SERVICE

| Jamary 1990 Board

September 1989 Board
A blank field indicates that no service is scheduled for that time period m the selected route.

: *— ABC data is not available for routes 1 - KING, 8 — WR, 57 - NAGI die to softuare problems.
+ — Imticates no APC data was successfully captured during the Time Period.

TABLE A.6 SUNDAY BOARDINGS PER REVENUE HOUR

APPENDIX B
CUSTOMER OPINION SURVEY

RECORD SEX

e a] : ee

ae RECORD AREA

*) 1990_ PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Hi ! My name is and I am conducting a survey for the Hamilton Street Railway Co. about their transit

service. Could you please spare a few minutes to answer a couple of questions. Thank you !
1. How many one way trips, on average, do you take each week on the bus? _________ trips

2. What routes do you use regularly? Please indicate up to three.

3. Please indicate how important it is to have the following areas improved. Please use definately needs
improvement, needs some improvement and doesn't need improvement as the scale.

AREAS NEEDS IMPROVEMENT SOME IMPROVEMENT NO IMPROVEMENT
Number of shelters C] []
Number of benches
Number of litter containers
Availability of schedules
Availability of tickets/passes
Weekday service
Weeknight service
Weekend service
Existing route structures

D Route extension or new routes

_ Cleanliness of buses

Appearance of operators
Courtesy of operators

Operators adhering to schedules
Other ——_—_—________
Other

ee ee ee eee
ee ee ee
8 ee 8 eS eS 8 ee eee ee ee ee eee
nee ee ee ee ee ee
Caen 0 pen Pil meme ed em ee ee mie ee ee eee ie Lee eee men Tee
ee ee ee ee ee ee ee

4. Which three areas do you believe need the most attention? (Repeat choices above if needed)

5. Is the fare charged an important factor when deciding to use the bus?

Very important [ J
Somewhatimportant [ ]
Not important fe]

6. What is the main reason you take the bus?

D Thank you very much for your time! Do you have any comments about the questionnaire?

Once again, thank you and have a nice day!

SAMPLE:

1990 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY RESULTS

SEX NUMBER
Male 132
Female 268
Total 400
AREA NUMBER
Ancaster 19
Stoney Creek 45
Dundas 23
Mountain 156
Downtown E 52
Downtown C 53
Downtown W 52
Total 400

PERCENTAGE

33.33%
67.00%

100.00%

PERCENTAGE

4.75%
LT s25%
9./5%
39.00%
13.00%
13.25%
13.00%

100.00%

1. Number of one way trips taken each week;

# OF
TRIPS

DBANMAWNFO

ROUTE
NUMBER

WODANIAMNPWNE

# OF % OF
RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS

0 0.00%

21 5.25%
18 4.50%
60 15.00%
43 10.75%
92 23.00%

6 1.50%

70 17.50%

2. Regular routes used;
# OF % OF
RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS

69 8.33%
yl 6.16%
10 1.21%
25 3.02%
138 16.67%
16 1.93%
14 1.69%
10 Does

0 0.00%

PAP: 2.66%
7 25.05%

6 0.73%

22 2.66%
18 pas mba G:
ral 2.54%
28 S565
23 2.78%

# OF
TRIPS
9

10
a1
12
13
14
15

Total

ROUTE

NUMBER

# OF % OF
RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS

5 1.25%

56 14.00%

i 0.25%

26 6.50%

0 0.00%

2 0.50%

400 | 100.00%

# OF % OF
RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS

4.35%

30 3.62%

38 4.59%

23 2.78%

29 3.50%

32 3.86%

ih 1.333%

24 2.90%

23 2.78%

in 0.85%

iL 0.85%

i5 1.81%

lige) 1.81%

28 3.38%

iS Zo tee

7 0.85%

828 100.00%

€

3. The areas which need the most improvement;

AREA DEFINITELY NEEDS NEEDS SOME DOES NOT NEED
IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT
Number of shelters 39( 9.75%) 2050510. 25%:) 156( 39.00%)
Number of benches 61(15.25%) 203(50.75%) 136(34.00%)
Number of litter containers 86(21.50%) 278(69.503%) 36( 9.00%)
Availability of schedules 2( .50%) TaGlidliclDs) SiG Leas.
Availability of tickets/passes 57(14.25%) T3145 .25:%)) 162( 40.50%)
Weekday service di mele] 5%) 72(18.00%) 321:(80.25%)
Weeknight service 19( 4.75%) 144( 36.00%) 237(59.25%)
Weekend service S30 6.25% )0 154(38.503%) PaWeM Plays A Pot |
Existing routes 6( 1.50%) 34( 8.52%) 359(89.97%)*
Route extensions/new routes 18( 4.50%) 38( 9.50%) 344(86.00%)
Cleanliness of buses 6( 1.50%) 349(87.25%) 45 G0) 2252)
Appearance of Operators (e253) 176( 44.00%) Z23( 55608 )
Courtesy of Operators 4( 1.00%) 117(29.253%) 274(69.75%) *
Operators adhering to schedules 11( 2.76%) 180(45.11%) 208(52.13%)*
Overall 350( 6.26%) 2202( 39.37%) 3041(54.37%)

* denotes less than 400 complete answers
4. The results are not used as the question was not fully understood.
5. How important are fares?

# OF RESPONSES

RESPONSE % OF RESPONSES
> Fares are very important 0 0.00%

Fares are somewhat important 42 10.55%

Fares are not important 356 89.45%

6. Reasons for taking the bus;

% OF RESPONSES

REASONS # OF RESPONSES

Do not drive 121 30.25%
Car not always available 108 27.00%
Do not own a car 106 26.50%
Too expensive to use car 9 2.25%
Parking is expensive/hassle 33 8.25%
Too young to drive Vi 25%
Prefer not to drive at times 19 4.753%
Help the environment 2 - 50%
Weather dependent af 25%
Total 400 100.00%

Cae:

hes

: 7) =e
i a <i
7 7 i

ge. ae et ee

nike. leas
LEU SRT EGE
eal ee ee
#0€, Ce eas

AIWEee.. |
PES. i Fa
VP ike PL EON Rg oa att: AT TAGES

ye cage caste as: Fea 3
iz ouinapeiion., vl Oot tou vs ; shee Rit ‘oan nd —
: Lh - a> a
. a
r é
: 4
7 09% Gt ey
7 dat 8 é
y yea ee ae

4 wu, oe TTRALTS eau, | ;

wages 8 Laermer, Sie
oat por seen ,

- ue © oe
: Ze7. = 7s ei ray Ate
i ae , ee
. __ ® jé 2% Mia
: Aion ae Tau at
ba va 7 ey Ao
: vp Lanne
; 700, Pas 7 5 ae
=a De oe
ave Lt 7 a
oral a ¢ ri
ub Li |
He By P] a
ae 7 Ra
fa! rs > ae .
vA TT eel ‘S568 y
| ‘ ' tO ip. wero, a
Vay wig | . . y ‘4 , Sioee tj
¥ 7 ivy mi

,
“3 vee coh cle ody veo “aes Tite UN i a. At es Beh: Pe ar a nS i

i ae hap a ni hoes cr \ 7 : 5 ae. iM a
eT Seah tt ee 8 Pe _

2585.

22129

N
()
eI
ap)

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Hamilton Street Railway Company 1991 Transit Service Plan : Options for Discussion"

See other formats